it is not 17.3x13mm sensor... you can see some actual spec's from manufacturers for 43/m43 sensors and 2x crop is a myth as well as 4 times lesser imaging area... it is 3.7 lesser imaging area and bigger crop and that is if you actually believe that FF gets the data from 36x24mm (instead of it being just the sensor size w/ a smaller imaging area)

That's an upcoming sensor from Panasonic, 4k video & all, no? Maybe it's a little bigger than standard, like the GH2's sensor. Anyway, even a true 17.3x13mm sensor is a bit more than 1/4 the imaging area of a true 24x36mm sensor. Around 1/3.85, which isn't far off your 1/3.7. Close enough for rock 'n' roll!

I think the reason why some (certainly not all) of those lenses deliver ugh performance is pretty clear: high photosite density in a small imaging area. Optical limitations—in particular, with M lenses, the oblique angles of incidence issue—are exposed.

Dave/You can add micro lenses and a host of other reasons to the mix. I don't know why legacy lenses don't work – they, often, just don't. Also, can you tell me why you get good results with the A7r but bad ones with the simple A7 ? High photosite density in a small imaging area, is surely not the (only) reason. I've asked the question before but no-one, so far, has answered that conundrum.

This is true assuming one views buying photo gear as an investment. I realize many people do. I don't. When it comes to cameras & formats I'm a serial polygamist. I love to try different stuff!

And that's great, I have 'no problem' with that, it's you, and those like you, that make this forum an interesting place to exchange views on gear. Without your feedback we'd be in fanboy territory. In contrast to you, I'm a gear 'minimalist' - I look for quality and simplicity. Simplicity, being one of the many reasons I bought the Fuji. To each his own.

I didn't diss either Olympus or m43 in my post, and it had nothing to do with 'investment' for long term gain. On the contrary, Olympus has produced great cameras and optics – they've got a great DNA. Not so sure about their past ethics, but that's another topic. SONY is now their largest single shareholder so I'm hopeful that, contrary to the NYT article above, they'll also survive the predicted meltdown.

I was pointing out, that for a different set of 'requirements' (see above) , there was ' still a decision to be made '. If you want legacy capability, it's SONY at $2,200. If you want m43, it's Olympus at a minimum system cost of about $5,000 plus. A pro will be able to write that off with depreciation and tax deductions. An amateur will have to pony up. That's all.

Interesting discussion. My work is mostly landscape which can get printed to 17 x 25 or occasionally larger. Like several other posters my main camera is also the 1Ds3 which has given great results and service, and is still working fine after all these years. But it is quite heavy especially with a few "L" lenses in my pack and a tripod. Is anyone who uses a full frame also printing large with the Oly? I'd love to know if the Oly prints hold up side by side or is there a noticeable difference? What concerns me is that not only is the sensor itself smaller but there is also a difference in file size.

Dave/You can add micro lenses and a host of other reasons to the mix. I don't know why legacy lenses don't work – they, often, just don't. Also, can you tell me why you get good results with the A7r but bad ones with the simple A7? High photosite density in a small imaging area, is surely not the (only) reason. I've asked the question before but no-one, so far, has answered that conundrum.

I don't own either Sony camera so I can't comment on them, other than to note that the reports I've read so far have been incomplete regarding legacy lenses, M mount in particular. Has anyone tried the same set of lenses on both an A7 and an A7r, used in the same way with the same subject matter under the same conditions, and done a compare & contrast?

Yes, the use (or not) of microlenses will be a factor with oblique light rays. I haven't seen any color fringing effects—other than those attributable to lens aberrations—with my M, LTM, CRF (Contax RF) or NRF (Nikon RF) lenses on m43 cameras and actually not much corner light falloff either. Same goes for M & LTM stuff on the Fuji X-E1. Clearly, though, this is an issue with the A7r at least. I'd expect it to be even more so with the A7...

I really wish Cosina would make a full-blown CRF/NRF adapter, including a focusing helical for 50mm lenses, for Fuji & Sony mirrorless cams. They know how to do it right due to their experience making CRF & NRF versions of the Bessa R2 rangefinder. These old RF lenses are hardly the best I own specs-wise but they've got lotsa character.

Dang I can't seem to find this setting; I see where to set the Picture Mode to Natural, but can't find the rest of the settings. Your right, crazy menu.

Also, do those settings apply to both Still and Video when you set it or do you need to do that in two menu areas?

Chris,

I suggest reverting back to stock and starting again.

Get a note pad as the olympus menu doesn't return to where you left off. All the settings are there including curves (which are invaluable). Also I would suggest working the evf settings to match you computer as close as possible.

I find the stock look and settings on the olympus to be somewhat consumerish, with way too punch colors and contrast and at first didn't like the look I was getting, now I love the look and understand what the camera is capable of.